Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of James 3:9

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of James 3:9” utilice nuestra app.

Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

9. Therewith bless we God, even the Father ] Many of the better MSS. give “the Lord” instead of “God”. The fact dwelt on comes in to illustrate the strange inconsistency, even of men who professed faith in God, in their use of speech. General as the words are, they pointed, we may believe, especially to the feelings of Jews towards Christians, or of the more bigoted section of Jewish Christians towards the Gentiles. Such men were loud in their benedictions of the Eternal, the Blessed One, yet they had not learnt to reverence humanity as such, as made after the likeness of God. They cursed those who worshipped or believed after a different manner from their own. The annals of Christendom shew that the necessity for the warning has not passed away. Councils formulating the faith, and uttering their curses on heretics; Te Deums chanted at an Auto da F, or after a Massacre of St Bartholomew, the railings of religious parties who are restrained from other modes of warfare, present the same melancholy inconsistency.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Therewith bless we God – We men do this; that is, all this is done by the tongue. The apostle does not mean that the same man does this, but that all this is done by the same organ – the tongue.

Even the Father – Who sustains to us the relation of a father. The point in the remark of the apostle is, the absurdity of employing the tongue in such contradictory uses as to bless one who has to us the relation of a father, and to curse any being, especially those who are made in his image. The word bless here is used in the sense of praise, thank, worship.

And therewith curse we men – That is, it is done by the same organ by which God is praised and honored.

Which are made after the similitude of God – After his image, Gen 1:26-27. As we bless God, we ought with the same organ to bless those who are like him. There is an absurdity in cursing men who are thus made, like what there would be in both blessing and cursing the Creator himself.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Jam 3:9; Jam 3:12

Therewith bless we God

The moral contradictions in the reckless talker

In these concluding sentences of the paragraph respecting sins of the tongue St.

James does two things–he shows the moral chaos to which the Christian who fails to control his tongue is reduced, and he thereby shows such a man how vain it is for him to hope that the worship which he offers to Almighty God can be pure and acceptable. He has made himself the channel of hellish influences. He cannot at pleasure make himself the channel of heavenly influences, or become the offerer of holy sacrifices. A man who curses his fellow-men, and then blesses God, is like one who professes the profoundest respect for his sovereign, while he insults the royal family, throws mud at the royal portraits, and ostentatiously disregards the royal wishes. It is further proof of the evil character of the tongue that it is capable of lending itself to such chaotic activity. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father, i.e., God in His might and in His love; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the likeness of God. The heathen fable tells us the apparent contradiction of being able to blow both hot and cold with the same breath; and the son of Sirach points out that if thou blow the spark, it shall burn; if thou Spit upon it, it shall be quenched; and both these come out of thy mouth (Sir 28:12). St. James, who may have had this passage in his mind, shows us that there is a real and a moral contradiction which goes far beyond either of these: Out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. Well may he add, with affectionate earnestness, My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Assuredly they ought not; and yet how common the contradiction has been, and still is, among those who seem to be, and who think themselves to be, religious people! There is perhaps no particular in which persons professing to have a desire to serve God are more ready to invade His prerogatives than in venturing to denounce those who differ from themselves, and are supposed to be therefore under the ban of Heaven. There are many questions which have to be carefully considered and answered before a Christian mouth, which has been consecrated to the praise of our Lord and Father, ought to venture to utter denunciations against others who worship the same God and are also His offspring and His image. Is it quite certain that the supposed evil is something which God abhors; that those whom we would denounce are responsible for it; that denunciation of them will do any good; that this is the proper time for such denunciation; that we are the proper persons to utter it? The illustrations of the fountain and the fig-tree are among the touches which, if they do not indicate one who is familiar with Palestine, at any rate agree well with the fact that the writer of this Epistle was such. Springs tainted with salt or with sulphur are not rare, and it is stated that most of those on the eastern slope of the hill-country of Judaea are brackish. The fig-tree, the vine, and the olive were abundant throughout the whole country; and St. James, if he looked out of the window as he was writing, would be likely enough to see all three. It is not improbable that in one or more of the illustrations he is following some ancient saying or proverb. Thus, Arrian, the pupil of Epictetus, writing less than a century later, asks, How can a vine grow, not vinewise, but olivewise, or an olive, on the other hand, not olivewise, but vinewise? It is impossible, inconceivable. It is possible that our Lord Himself, when He used a similar illustration in connection with the worst of all sins of the tongue, was adapting a proverb already in use (Mat 12:33-36). And previously, in the Sermon on the Mount, where He is speaking of deeds rather than of Mat 7:16-18). Can it be the case that while physical contradictions are not permitted in the lower classes of unconscious objects, moral contradictions of a very monstrous kind are allowed in the highest of all earthly creatures? Just as the double-minded man is judged by his doubts, and not by his forms of prayer, so the double-tongued man is judged by his curses, and not by his forms of praise. In each case one or the other of the two contradictories is not real. If there is prayer, there are no doubts; and if there are doubts, there is no prayer–no prayer that will avail with God. So also in the other case: if God is sincerely and heartily blessed, there will be no cursing of His children; and if there is such cursing, God cannot acceptably be blessed; the very words of praise, coming from such lips, will be an offence to Him. But it may be urged, our Lord Himself has set us an example of strong denunciation in the woes which He pronounced upon the scribes and Pharisees; and again, St. Paul cursed Hymensaeus and Alexander (1Ti 1:20), the incestuous person at Corinth (1Co 5:5), and Elymas the sorcerer Act 13:10). Most true. But firstly, these curses were uttered by those who could not err in such things. Christ knew what was in man, and could read the hearts of all; and the fact that St. Pauls curses were supernaturally fulfilled proves that he was acting under Divine guidance in what he said. And secondly, these stern utterances had their source in love; not, as human curses commonly have, in hate. And let us remember the proportion which such things bear to the rest of Christs words and of St. Pauls words, so far as they have been preserved for us. All this applies with much force to those who believe themselves to be called upon to denounce and curse all such as seem to them to be enemies of God and His truth: but with how much more force to those who in moments of anger and irritation deal in execrations on their own account, and curse a fellow-Christian, not because he seems to them to have offended God, but because he has offended themselves! That such persons should suppose that their polluted mouths can offer acceptable praises to the Lord and Father, is indeed a moral contradiction of the most startling kind. The writer of this Epistle has been accused of exaggeration. It has been urged that in this strongly worded paragraph he himself is guilty of that unchastened language which he is so eager to condemn; that the case is over-stated, and that the highly-coloured picture is a caricature. Is there any thoughtful person of large experience that can honestly assent to this verdict? Who has not seen what mischief may be done by a single utterance of mockery, or enmity, or bravado; what confusion is wrought by exaggeration, innuendo, and falsehood; what suffering is inflicted by slanderous suggestions and statements; what careers of sin have been begun by impure stories and filthy jests? All these effects may follow, be it remembered, from a single utterance in each case, may spread to multitudes, may last for years. One reckless word may blight whole life. And there are persons who habitually pour forth such things, who never pass a day without uttering what is unkind, or false, or impure. (A. Plummer, D. D.)

The tongue–its blessing and cursing

I. THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE TONGUE.

1. Its blessing of God. This is the great end for which the human tongue exists–this the highest employment in which it can be engaged. We do this in various ways. We thus bless Him in our praises. These are sung either more privately in our own dwellings or more publicly in the sanctuary. He requires, above everything, the soul, but He will have the body also; the members and organs of the one, not less than the faculties and affections of the other. We thus bless God also in our prayers, whether these be secret, domestic, or public. In them adoring and thankful praises constitute no small or subordinate element. We extol the Lord for His infinite perfections, we give Him the glory due unto His great and holy name. We testify our obligations to Him for His mercies without number, and lay offerings of grateful homage on His altar.

2. Its cursing of men. Even the most orthodox and charitable Christians are not wholly exempt from this tendency. We are far too ready to pass sentence on our brethren, and in effect, if not in form, to curse such as do not happen to agree with us in some respects, and these, it may be, of quite secondary importance. Everything of this sort is of the nature of cursing–it partakes in one degree or another of that character. And mark the aggravating circumstance, that which involves the frightful inconsistency charged against the tongue–men, which are made after the similitude of God. We were at first created in His image, stamped with His moral lineaments in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness. And in a sense too, as the, language here obviously implies, we still bear that likeness. Such cursing is in reality a cursing of God Himself whom we yet bless–a cursing of Him in man, who is not only His workmanship, but His reflection, His image–not merely a being formed by His hand, but formed after His likeness. We cannot keep the first table of the law, and at the same time set at nought the second. The strangely, outrageously inconsistent nature of the whole proceeding is still more forcibly exhibited by bringing the two contrary things together, placing them side by side, presenting them in sharpest contrast (Jam 3:10). There it is that the flagrant, shocking contradiction appears.

II. THE UNNATURALNESS OF THIS INCONSISTENCY (Jam 3:11-12). Doth a fountain send forth at the same place–the same hole, chink, or fissure, as in the rock whence it issues–sweet water and bitter? No–nothing of this kind is ever witnessed. The water which flows from the spring may have either, but it cannot have both of these qualities. It may indeed afterwards undergo a change, it may lose its original properties, and be turned into the opposite of what it was, by reason of the soil through which it runs, or the purposes to which it is applied. What was sweet may by certain mixtures become bitter. But at first, in its own nature, and apart from all foreign ingredients, it is wholly the one or the other. There is no inconsistency in the material region. He passes to a higher department, the vegetable kingdom, and shows that there too plants and trees bring forth a single kind of fruit, and that which is suited to the order, the species to which they belong. Can the fig-tree, my brethren, bear olive-berries, either a vine figs? Of course it cannot. Any such thing would be a monstrosity. Titan, returning to the spring, not without reference to the internal, hidden source from which all our words proceed, be adds, So can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh. He wishes to fix attention on the inconsistency manifested in the use of the tongue, and lead them to the right explanation of its origin. This anomaly does seem to be exhibited in the moral world, if not in the material. But it is so more in appearance than in reality. That water is often the same which looks different. What to some tastes and tests is fresh, when thoroughly examined, is found to be salt as the ocean. Much that to our earthly senses is sweet, to the spiritually-discerning is bitter indeed. Thus the blessing of many is formal, if not even false, having nothing gracious in it, no love or homage of the heart, no element or quality fitted to render it acceptable to the great object of worship. In its origin and essence it is not opposed to, nor, indeed, different from the cursing of man, with which it is associated. The latter reveals the true nature of the common source, or there may be two fountains where only one is perceptible. The former supposition applies to nominal and hypocritical Christians–this latter to living, genuine believers. They have an old man and a new, corruption and grace both existing and working within them; and as the one or the other gains the ascendancy, and, for the time, governs the tongue, the stream of discourse that issues from it is wholesome or deleterious–fresh as that of the bubbling spring, or salt as that of the briny deep. (John Adam.)

The evil tongue

St. James uses three special arguments to restrain Christians from the unruly use of the tongue: the first is the inconsistency of the thing–that the heart touched by the Holy Spirit should do the works of the flesh–that the fountain which hath been purified should again flow with bitter waters and the servants of Christ should serve Belial We have promised to study the strains of angels, and become familiar with and adopt them as our own; so that instead of being now a Babel of confusion, the Church may utter but one language in the presence of the Lamb; and how very inconsistent that from such lips cursing should proceed–how very inconsistent if any of you who have been now repeating Davids psalms, the notes of heaven, should to-morrow be found uttering an oath, or even using a passionate expression. It is bad enough for one who only professes Christianity to use the language of the devil, but it is a greater inconsistency when out of the same mouth proceeds blessing and cursing–when you, the same person, bless God, yet curse His image. Let the wicked do it; the heathen who is without God, and without Christ, if it must be. He that is unjust, &c. But a Christian man–a man who has been baptized into the Holy Trinity; a man who readsthe Bible, and comes into Gods house and worships there: a man who joins himself to the company of the saints, dead and living, and takes into his mouth the same words, the same prayers, the same Scripture passages with them;–nay, the man who perhaps approaches the awful mystery of the Body and Blood of His Lord;-that from such a mouth should proceed the gibes and imprecations of lost spirits, is it not shockingly inconsistent? Next, St. James reminds us of the consequences both to others and ourselves. Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth, awed the tongue is a fire. How far may a single spark dropped among stubble reach! Bow does it steal along the floor, creep up the wall, envelop the roof, spread from house to house, and seize churches and noble buildings, till it wrap a whole city in conflagration! So does a single word dropped unadvisedly. If a soft answer turneth away wrath, on the other hand grievous words stir up anger. If you reply quietly to a provocation, or refuse to answer, the quarrel dies; but one word draws on another, and wrath kindleth wrath; and that is made eternal which might have been extinguished if only one had been a Christian. You see, then, how great a matter a little fire kindleth. Is it surprising if of every idle word we shall give an account at the judgment? But again, you say something injurious of your neighbour. There is a little truth in it, but much more falsehood. It has been added to, and enlarged, and swollen into a crime. But you repeat it. The story spreads. It is told everywhere, and though it wounds your neighbour to death, and from the calumny he loses all acquaintances and friends, yet you cannot recall it now. See how great a matter a little fire kindleth. Again, you utter impure words before a child, the child treasures them up all through his life; though he lives sixty or seventy years, unhappy being, his thoughts and language take their complexion from your words; but besides, to how many has lie communicated what he first heard from you! Mark again, how great a little fire kindleth. Surely the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity, and setteth on fire the course of nature. To conclude: if we will not restrain our members by the aid of Gods Spirit, and especially that member which St. Peter calls an unruly evil, full of deadly poison; if we will, in the indulgence of a wilful spirit, scatter firebrands about, unkind, malicious, polluting, or injurious words, wide-spread as the evil may be, will it stop short with others? No, it will return upon ourselves; which setteth on fire the course of nature, and it is set on fire of hell. The fire which hath gone forth spreading and consuming, at the judgment hour is stopped in its course, and rolling back again is concentrated on the tongue which gave it existence. You who uttered the word, which has done such mischief to thousands, and ruined so many souls, now feel its burning effects in your own person. Ought not this to make you careful of your words, those winged words, which once launched forth take a flight you know not whither? (J. M. Chaunter, M. A.)

Made after the similitude of God

Man made after Gods image

This image of God consisteth in three things–

1. In His nature, which was intellectual. God gave him a rational soul, spiritual, simple, immortal, free in its choice; yea, in the body there were some rays and strictures of the Divine glory and majesty.

2. In those qualities of knowledge (Col 3:10); righteousness Ecc 7:29); and true holiness (Eph 4:24).

3. In his state, in a happy confluence of all inward and outward blessings, as the enjoyment of God, power over the creatures, &c. But now this image is in a great part defaced and lost, and can only be restored in Christ. Well, then, this was the g, eat privilege of our creation, to be made like God: the more we resemble Him the more happy. Oh! remember the height of your original. We press men to walk worthy of their extraction. Those potters that were of a servile spirit disgraced the kingly family and line of which they came (1Ch 4:22). Plutarch saith of Alexander, that he was wont to heighten his courage by remembering he came of the gods. Remember you were made after the image of God; do not deface it in yourselves, or render it liable to contempt, by giving others occasion to revile you. (T. Manton.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 9. Therewith bless we God] The tongue is capable of rehearsing the praises, and setting forth the glories, of the eternal King: what a pity that it should ever be employed in a contrary work! It can proclaim and vindicate the truth of God, and publish the Gospel of peace and good will among men: what a pity that it should ever be employed in falsehoods, calumny, or in the cause of infidelity!

And therewith curse we men] In the true Satanic spirit, many pray to God, the Father, to destroy those who are objects of their displeasure! These are the common swearers, whose mouths are generally full of direful imprecations against those with whom they are offended.

The consideration that man is made after the image of God should restrain the tongue of the swearer; but there are many who, while they pretend to sing the high praises of God, are ready to wish the direst imprecations either on those who offend them, or with whom they choose to be offended.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Therewith bless we God; pray, and speak well of God.

Even the Father; of Christ, and in him of all true believers.

And therewith curse we men; rail on, revile, speak evil of, as well as wish evil to.

Which are made after the similitude of God; either:

1. Saints in whom Gods image is anew restored; or rather:

2. Men more generally, who, though they have lost that spiritual knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness in which that image of God, after which man was created, principally consists; yet still have some relics of his image continuing in them.

This is added to aggravate the sin; speaking evil of men made after Gods image, is speaking evil of God obliquely, and by reflection.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

9. GodThe oldest authoritiesread, “Lord.” “Him who is Lord and Father.” Theuncommonness of the application of “Lord” to the Father,doubtless caused the change in modern texts to “God” (Jas1:27). But as Messiah is called “Father,” Isa9:6, so God the Father is called by the Son’s title, “Lord”:showing the unity of the Godhead. “Father” implies Hispaternal love; “Lord,” His dominion.

men, whichnot “menwho“; for what is meant is not particular men, but mengenetically [ALFORD].

are made after . . .similitude of GodThough in a great measure man has lost thelikeness of God in which he was originally made, yet enough ofit still remains to show what once it was, and what in regeneratedand restored man it shall be. We ought to reverence this remnant andearnest of what man shall be in ourselves and in others. “Absalomhas fallen from his father’s favor, but the people still recognizehim to be the king’s son” [BENGEL].Man resembles in humanity the Son of man, “the express image ofHis person” (Heb 1:3),compare Gen 1:26; 1Jn 4:20.In the passage, Ge 1:26, “image”and “likeness” are distinct: “image,” accordingto the Alexandrians, was something in which men were created,being common to all, and continuing to man after the fall, while the”likeness” was something toward which man wascreated, to strive after and attain it: the former marks man’sphysical and intellectual, the latter his moral pre-eminence.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Therewith bless we God, even, the Father,…. Of Jesus Christ, and of spirits, and of mercies: this is the instrument that is used in blessing God daily every meal that is eaten; and in joining with the saints, though only verbally and outwardly, in blessing God for all spiritual blessings in Christ, both in prayer, and in singing psalms:

and therewith curse we men: make imprecations, and wish evils upon them:

which are made after the similitude of God as man was originally, Ge 1:26 and though sin has greatly defaced it, yet there are still some remains of it: and now, what an absurd and monstrous thing is this, that one and the same instrument should be used in blessing God, the Father of all creatures, and in cursing his children, his offering, as all men are by creation, and bear some resemblance to him.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Therewith ( ). This instrumental use of is not merely Hebraistic, but appears in late Koine writers (Moulton, Prol., pp. 11f., 61f.). See also Ro 15:6.

We bless (). Present active indicative of , old verb from (a good word, , ), as in Lu 1:64 of God. “This is the highest function of speech” (Hort).

The Lord and Father ( ). Both terms applied to God.

Curse we (). Present middle indicative of the old compound verb , to curse (from a curse), as in Lu 6:28.

Which are made after the likeness of God ( ‘ ). Second perfect articular participle of and , old word from (to make like), making like, here only in N.T. (from Gen 1:26; Gen 9:6), the usual word being , resemblance (Php 2:7). It is this image of God which sets man above the beasts. Cf. 2Co 3:18.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

God, even the Father [ ] . The proper reading, is ton Kurion, the Lord, and the kai, and, is simply connective. Read, therefore, as Rev., the Lord and Father. This combination of terms for God is uncommon. See ch. Jas 1:27.

Which. Not who, which would designate personally certain men; whereas James designates them generically.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) The restless depraved tongue is used to bless, eulogize the Lord, and maliciously curse Him and one’s fellow man, who is made in the image or according to the likeness, of the Trinitarian God, Rom 15:16; Php_2:7; 2Co 3:18; Act 17:29.

2) It is the image and likeness or volition of God in man that makes him above the beasts of the field. To curse one’s fellow man is to curse the image and likeness of his Creator, Gen 1:26-27.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

9 Therewith, or, by it, bless we God. It is a clear instance of its deadly poison, that it can thus through a monstrous levity transform itself; for when it pretends to bless God, it immediately curses him in his own image, even by cursing men. For since God ought to be blessed in all his works, he ought to be so especially as to men, in whom his image and glory peculiarly shine forth. It is then a hypocrisy not to be borne, when man employs the same tongue in blessing God and in cursing men. There can be then no calling on God, and his praises must necessarily cease, when evil-speaking prevails; for it is impious profanation of God’s name, which the tongue is virulent towards our brethren and pretends to praise him. That he may therefore rightly praise God, the view of evil speaking as to our neighbor must especially be corrected.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

MR. TWO-FACED

Text 3:912

Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God:

10.

Out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren these things ought not so to be.

11.

Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?

12.

Can a fig tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a vine figs? neither can salt water yield sweet.

Queries

224.

What is the difference between reference to God as Lord and as Father?

225.

What is the inconsistency herein in praising God and cursing men with the same tongue?

226.

What does curse mean as it is used here?

227.

What is repeated in this verse, that has just previously been stated?

228.

Why the repetition?

229.

Why point out the impossibility of nature doing what Jas. 3:9 states that we do?

230.

Compare Jas. 3:11-12 with Mat. 7:15-23.

231.

Do we actually accomplish what Jas. 3:9 states?

232.

Why do you think the fig, olive, and vine were selected as illustrations?

233.

Can you think of several others that illustrate the same point?

Paraphrases

A. 9.

The same tongue at one time praises the Lord and spits forth curses upon man made in the likeness of God. Thus we bless the Father and curse the Fathers image.

10.

The purity of praises and the filth of curses spring from the same mouth. My brethren, is this consistent and proper?

11.

Does a fountain simultaneously from the same opening spill forth both sweet and bitter waters?

12.

Does an apple tree bear both pecans and apples? Can a grapevine grow peaches? Neither can one fountain give two kinds of waters!

B.*9.

Sometimes it praises our heavenly Father, and sometimes it breaks out into curses against men who are made like God.

10.

And so blessing and cursing come pouring out of the same mouth. Dear brothers, surely this is not right!

12.

Can you pick olives from a fig tree, or figs from a grapevine? No, and you cant draw fresh water from a salty pool.

Summary

With an inconsistency not found in all nature we bless the Father and curse the Fathers image, man.

Comment

Blessing God is contrasted with cursing man. When the father of John (the baptizer) had his tongue loosed on the eighth day of the new-born child, his first speaking was to bless God, Luk. 1:64. And when he began to prophesy, his first words were, Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel . . . (James 3:68). It is not necessary to use the term blessed in order to bless the Lord. Any praise or extolling directed to Him or on His behalf is a means of blessing God. Even giving thanks unto God is a means of blessing him. (see Mar. 14:19; Mark 26:26; 1Co. 14:16). Thus it is that most people claiming to be a Christian cannot make this claim, nor pray, nor sing praises unto Him without blessing God.

Yet how many people will with one breath claim to be a Christian and with another breath, from the same mouth, invoke evil upon their fellowman? Sometimes the expressed evil desire upon the fellow man may reach the proportions of beseeching God to bring damnation upon his fellow man. God does not wilfully or wishfully bring damnation on any man. Gods desire to save man from his own damnation was so intense it brought about an unspeakable sacrifice. Hell is not fit, and was not designed, for man. Although man may chose to be fit for hell, God has done and is doing everything to prevent man from bringing upon himself this horrible death.
To ask such a God to damn our fellow man is the height of affrontery and a disregard for His revealed love. Such a request reveals a tendency within our own hearts that is completely foreign to the ways of God. To request or charge our fellow man to go to hell is in complete opposition to the desire of God so constantly expressed . . . even by His tears and His shed blood. This is so obvious that a Christian needs but reflect a moment to agree.
But can we not also curse men without using curse words? In the same way in which we bless the Father by singing praises unto Him, can we not also curse our fellow man by expressing ill-will, by slander, by sending forth destructive verbal missiles? How many times men are tempted to climb the ladder of success by stepping upon the rungs of the spoiled reputations of their fellow men. Although we can never get ourselves out of the pit of guilt in this fashion, we sometimes attempt to feel elevated by trampling underfoot our fellow man. While we trample our neighbor into the mire of sin and shame, our own feet become stained with his blood, and the stench of our murderous action causes all mankind to withdraw from us in horror!

It is no wonder the Lord admonishes us to bless and curse not. (Rom. 12:13). Although the Christian may himself be the object of cursing and receive reviling, defamation, and even the filth of the world, he is still admonished to bless and endure, as did the apostle Paul. Even to this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place; and we toil, working with our own hands; being reviled, we bless; being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the world, the off scouring of all things, even until now. (1Co. 4:11-13).

Oh, that entire congregations of Gods people would read this third chapter and tremble. Countless are the broken hearts and broken lives that are left in the wake of a poisonous tongue. How many ministers have ceased to preach, driven to despair by the loose tongues of those who should be on the Lords side? How many thousands have been driven from the assembly of Gods people in shame and disgust over slander and tale-bearing? How many churches have been split asunder by the everlasting venom of poisonous tongues?

Who is the image of God? Some may argue that only the Christian bears this stamp. Yet, is not this very chapter addressed to Christians? Are not Christians involved in the very sins so strongly admonished in this epistle? No doubt, the saint of God is to grow in Gods image (2Co. 7:2; Rom. 8:29; 2Pe. 1:4 ff), and no doubt he shall one day indeed be as He is (Php. 3:21; 1Jn. 3:1-3; 1Co. 15:5 ff). The Image of God however applies to all men. Man (mankind) was created in His image. Although man has corrupted and defaced this image; and although it is in no single instance all that it should be; the likeness of God is there . . . in both Christian and the non-Christian. (see 1Co. 11:7; Gen. 1:26; Gen. 5:1; Gen. 9:6; Mal. 2:10).

What then is this image? Is it mans body, having two legs; a creature that walks upright and has a thumb different from all other animals? Although a few may hold to this conviction, often using the argument to support strange and unusual doctrines not found in the Scriptures; the consensus is that mans likeness of God is in the nature and capacity of the inner man. Gods image includes such attributes as reason, conscience, knowledge, the power of dominion, the capacity for moral and spiritual holiness, conviction through testimony (faith), etc. In potential and capacity, man is in the image of God. In freedom of will, freedom to choose heaven or hell, man is in Gods image. In his guilt, his sin, his temporary body, his limitations to time and space he is certainly not in Gods image; but one day, by the mercy of God even these things will change!

The problem of cursing seems to trouble many commentators. The allowable cursing within the Old Testament (Pro. 11:26; Pro. 24:24; Gen. 9:25; Gen. 49:7; Jos. 6:26; Jdg. 5:23; Jdg. 9:20; Jdg. 9:57.) seems to conflict directly with the prohibition of James. The problem seems to dissolve, however, when we recall that a curse does in reality exist, especially for the benefit of the devil and his angels. But we should also reflect that man is the author of neither salvation nor damnation. We can no more create a curse than we can create a scheme of redemption. To repeat the salvation offered by God, and to repeat the curse of sin revealed in the Scripture, is not only our privilege but our duty. But to set ourselves up as the judge of man and the author of either salvation or damnation is to assume in arrogance a responsibility we should by all means prefer to avoid. We have neither the capacity nor the right for such a task, and we only work havoc when we try.

Man with a free will of his own is able to do that which nature, moving only by instinct and intuition, cannot do. Thus man accomplished transgression and soul destruction beyond the ability of other creatures. Man can, and does, do things that ought not so to be. He succeeds in being inconsistent because he is two-faced, The fountain is not two-watered, the tree is not two-fruited, but man can make himself two-faced. The tree was designed to bear fruit after its kind (Gen. 1:11). Mankind was also intended to bear fruit in Gods image. It would be far better to have been a tree with no will of ones own than to be a man who deliberately makes the wrong choices in life.

The sweet waters from the hills around the dead sea sometimes go underground and furnish pressure for springs near to the dead sea. Before they spring forth, they mix with the waters of the dead sea, which are very salty. There are salt water springs near the dead sea and there are also sweet-water springs in Palestine. But no spring is both salty and sweet at the same time. Can a man love God and hate his brother? Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. (1Jn. 4:7-8)

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(9) Therewith bless we God, even the Father.A strange reading of this verse in the more ancient manuscripts makes it, Therewith bless we the Lord and Father. And it may serve to remind us of the oneness of our God, that thus He may be termed Lord and Saviour. His worship and praise are, as explained under Jas. 3:6, the right use of the tongue; but, most inconsistently, therewith curse we men which have been made in the image, after the similitude, of God. See Ps. 1. 16-23, with its final words of warning to the wicked, and praise to him that ordereth his conversation right.

The likeness of God assuredly remains in the most abandoned and fallen; and to curse it is to invoke the wrath of its Creator. What then can be urged in defence of anathemas and fulminations of councils, or the mutual execrations of sects and schisms, in the light of these solemn words? Though they curse, yet bless thou . . . and let them cover themselves with their own confusion (Psa. 109:28-29).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

9. This wildness of the tongue is now (9-12) shown by the contrariety of its moral uses. We In Jas 3:9-10 our apostle passes beyond the limits of the Christian synagogue into the length and breadth of the twelve tribes. And his we includes himself, by courtesy, even among the profane users of the tongue.

Bless we God Applicable to all Jews, and indicating that his address does go little beyond the monotheistic twelve tribes. A preferred reading is Lord for God.

Even the Father Creator of man in his own image. The twelve tribes did not fully recognise the Son.

Cursemen Especially at these times did the tribes curse their Roman conquerors and despots.

Similitude of God And so to curse as well as to murder (Gen 1:26; Gen 9:6) is aggravated by that similitude.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

are closely connected with the foregoing; but not as if “the unstedfastness of the tongue is further described” (de Wette), nor as if the duplicity of the tongue is added as a new point (Lange), but for the purpose of prominently showing how the tongue, although it praises God, yet proves itself to be an ,

Jas 3:9-10 are closely connected with the foregoing; but not as if “the unstedfastness of the tongue is further described” (de Wette), nor as if the duplicity of the tongue is added as a new point (Lange), but for the purpose of prominently showing how the tongue, although it praises God, yet proves itself to be an , . It is to be observed that this expression, as the first person plural shows, refers to Christians among whom the occurs. James does not hesitate to include himself, knowing that naturally he was entirely the same as others. [177] James first places beside each other, by a simple copulative conjunction, the two contradictory acts which man performs by the tongue, namely, the and the . The preposition is instrumental, as in Luk 22:29 and elsewhere. By the repetition of in the second clause, the antithesis is yet more strongly marked. and are correlate expressions, since the former, as the translation of the Hebrew , has properly the meaning “to bless;” in reference to God, as here, it means laudibus celebrare, to praise; comp. Psa 145:21 , and other passages.

The combination of (instead of the Rec. . . ) as a designation of God (for by is not here to be understood Christ) is unusual; comp. chap. Jas 1:27 . This twofold name designates God on the side of His power and on the side of His love (comp. Mat 11:25 ).

In the second clause the important description: , is annexed to , by which the contradiction of the action described still more pointedly appears. The thought and expression agree with Gen 1:26 . Also, according to this, sinful man is still a being created after the image of God. Were the expression merely to be referred to what man originally was, but which he has ceased to be, the point of James’ saying would be broken. Bengel correctly observes: remanet nobilitas indelebilis. Benson, Pott, Gebser, and Semler arbitrarily restrict the contents of this verse to the conduct of those who set themselves up as teachers. [178]

[177] Lange finds a difficulty in James including himself, “which is to be solved either by taking the second clause as a question expressive of surprise, or by hearing James speak as the representative of his people in the name of the guilty people.” But both suppositions are equally impossible; the context contradicts the first, and the fact that James could have no reason to consider himself as the representative of the Jewish people contradicts the second.

[178] Semler’s view is very strange: hi inter publicas Dei laudes, etiam exsecrationes et tristia omnia praeibant in Romanis! It is equally a mistake when Lange refers the expression chiefly to Christians, and specially to Jewish Christians, “in whom the likeness of God, that is, the actuality and visibility of the image, has reappeared. ”

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Ver. 9. Therewith bless we God ] And so make our tongues our glory.

Therewith curse we men ] Yea, the best of men; as Korah and his accomplices fear not to object to Moses the meek, with one breath, pride, ambition, and usurpation of authority. So Shimei cursed David, the pope curseth the Reformed Churches. But cursing men are cursed men; those detestable God-damn-mes especially, with their fearful self-damning imprecations, and innominate soul-damning oaths, God justly may, and doubtlessly doth, take many of them at their words, as he did those who wished they might die in the wilderness,Num 14:28-29Num 14:28-29 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

9, 10 .] Exemplification of , by the inconsistent use of the tongue .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

9 .] Therewith (there could not be a word more accurately expressing the instrumental sense, as it is called, of : it is as clad in , and working in the realm and sphere of, that this use is found, as we say ‘a man in armour,’ ‘in a helmet:’ ) bless we (i. e. as applied to God, ‘praise we:’ cf. Ps. 144:21 LXX. The first person is used of mankind in general, considered as one agent) the Lord and Father (an unusual connexion to designate God: cf. ch. Jas 1:27 , where we have the more usual one, found also here in the rec. Both terms are to be taken of the Father: the former, on the side of His Power: the latter, on that of His Love), and therewith curse we men (generic), which (not, who , which would personally designate certain men thus made; but which , generic. This distinction, which some modern philologists are striving to obliterate, is very important in the rendering of Scripture, and has been accurately observed by our English translators) have been created (and are still, as the perf. part. shews. See below) after the likeness of God (which remains in us, marred indeed, but not, as is sometimes carelessly said, destroyed. This likeness we ought to revere, in ourselves and in others: and he who curses, despises it. Not man’s original state, but man’s present state is here under consideration: and on that consideration depends the force of the Apostle’s argument).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Jas 3:9 . : this is Hebrew usage, cf. , Luk 22:49 ; , Rev 6:8 . : this use is Hellenistic. Both in speaking and writing the Jews always added the words (“Blessed [be] He”) after the name of God; cf. Mar 14:61 , where is used in reference to God. : the reading can scarcely be right; is not, it is true, well attested (see critical note), but it is required on account of the ; neither the combination nor is in accordance with ordinary Jewish usage; the exact phrase does not occur in the Bible elsewhere, the nearest approach being Tob 13:4 , . Cf. Isa 63:16 , , and 1Ch 29:10 , , , , . Although the Jews frequently speak of God as “Father,” it is usually in a different combination, probably the most usual being “Our Father” alone, or “Our Father and King”; in the great prayer called the “Shemneh ‘Esreh” (“Eighteen” [Nineteen] Blessings), which was formulated in its final form about the year 110 A.D., each of the forty-four petitions which it contains begins with the words: Abinu Malknu [58] (“Our Father, our King”). is always used in reference to God in order to emphasise the divine love; and in the passage before us a contrast is undoubtedly implied between the love of the Father towards all His children, and the mutual hatred among these latter. f1 : this word shows that the special sin of the tongue which is here referred to is not slander or backbiting or lying, but personal abuse, such as results from loss of temper in heated controversy. Cf. Rom 12:13 , , and see the very appropriate passage in the Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs , Benj. 6:5, . : quoted, apparently from memory, from Gen 1:26 , where the Septuagint reads, ; the Hebrew ( ) is synonymous with ( ). The belief that men are made in the material likeness of God is taught both in Biblical and post-Biblical Jewish literature; philosophers like Philo would naturally seek to modify this. An interesting passage which reminds one of this verse is quoted by Knowling from Bereshith , R. xxiv., Rabbi Akiba (born in the middle of the first century A.D.), in commenting on Gen 9:6 , said: “Whoso sheddeth blood, it is reckoned to him as if he diminished the likeness ”; then referring presently to Lev 19:18 ( Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself ), he continues, “Do not say: ‘after that I am despised, let my neighbour also be despised’. R. Tanchuma said, ‘If you do so, understand that you despise him of whom it was written, in the likeness of God made He him ’.” The lesson is that he who curses him who was made in the image of God implicitly curses the prototype as well.

[58] To be distinguished from the “Abinu Malknu” prayer used in the penitential portion of the Jewish Liturgy.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

There with = With (App-104.) it.

God. App-98., but the texts read “the Lord” (App-98. b).

Father . App-98.

after. App-104.

similitude. Greek. homoiosis. Only here. In the Septuagint in Gen 1:26. Eze 1:10. Dan 10:16; &c.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

9, 10.] Exemplification of , by the inconsistent use of the tongue.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Jam 3:9. – , with this itself-and with this itself) A very expressive phrase.-) God. , Lord[39]) is the reading of the Alexandrian, Colbertinus 7, and Syriac texts. Baumgarten acknowledges the error; for God and Father is a common title, but not Lord and Father; but he adds the ancient Vulgate or Italian Version. In the Reutling. M.S. it is so read; for the copyists frequently use the name of God and Lord, without distinction; but the other Latin Manuscripts, with one consent, read God (wherefore many of them also omit the particle et, which immediately follows), and thus Cassioderus, in his Conplexiones, and more fully in the preface to his Commentary on the Psalms.- ) Baumgarten remarks, on the authority of Mill, is wanting in the Arabic and thiopic Versions.-) The Alexandrian and Colbertinus 7, read ;[40] and, in addition, notice that is to be read for . Mill also reads : Kuster, . The latter also reads with a single .- , after the likeness of God) We have lost the likeness of God: there remains however from that source a nobleness which cannot be destroyed, and this we ought to reverence both in ourselves and in others. Moreover, we have remained men, capable, by the Divine blessing, of being formed again after that likeness, to which the likeness of man ought to be conformed. They who curse, hinder that effect. Absalom has fallen from the favour of his father, but the people still recognise him to be the kings son.

[39] ABC Vulg. Syr. Memph. read . Rec. Text reads with MSS. of Vulg. and later Syr., but no other very old authority.-E.

[40] But BC read .-E.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Jas 3:9-12

CONTRADICTIONS OF THE TONGUE

Jas 3:9-12

9 Therewith bless we the Lord and Father;—The verb “bless,” is from eulogounien, present active indicative of eulogeo, to speak well of. This is, of course, the noblest and highest use of the tongue. It is, however, not surprising that the tongue is thus used with reference to God. Believers, at least, would be expected to speak well of God if they speak of him at all. This common use of the tongue by those who believe, does not justify its improper use with reference to men, and emphasizes the glaring inconsistency often characteristic of men to which this verse alludes. It cannot possibly be pleasing to the Father to be addressed in words of praise by a tongue which, preceding and following the ascription of praise, is used to pronounce curses and maledictions upon men. It is a strange form of logic which prompts a man to believe that God is pieased with praises addressed to him by a tongue which regularly slanders others. Man is made in God’s image; and, he who despises man, the handiwork of God, despi.ses God himself. John said, “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen. And this commandment have We from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also.” (1Jn 4:20-21; Mat 25:45.) It is idle for one to expect to be pleasing to God, though disposed to express words of devotion, when the sa me tongue is used to curse others, to slander their names, and to destroy their reputations. The word “bless,” the general meaning of which is to speak well of, is used more specifically elsewhere in the New Testament for the giving of thanks. (Mat 26:26; 1Co 14:16.)

The phrase, “The Lord and Father,” (ton kurion kai patara), means “the Lord who is our Father,” both terms referring to the same person. It will be observed that in the Greek phrase the article appears before the word Lord only, and thus the reference is to God. God is styled Father here to emphasize the fact that man is in his image, a fact indicated also in the last clause of the verse.

and therewith curse we men,—(“And therewith,” kai en aiite.) The two statements-this and that occurring in the preceding portion of the verse-are joined by the copulative kai, and are thus paralleled. The tongue is used to say good things of God, and it is the same tongue which is used to curse men. “Curse,” (katarometha, present middle indicative of kataraomai), indicates not an occasional lapse into this vice, but an habitual practice. The tenses in the statements thus placed side by side are the same. It is, so James affirms, a characteristic of some men habitually to praise God with a tongue which is also used regularly to pronounce curses upon other men. Such contradictions are common to men who are possessed of evil hearts, and a constant temptation to all, whether good or bad. The Psalmist wrote of some who “delight in lies,” who “bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly.” (Psa 62:4.) And, Paul admonished the Romans, “Bless them that persecute you; bless, and curse not.” (Rom 12:14.)

The etymology of the word translated “curse,” is interesting and significant. It is compounded from kata, down, and araomai, to curse. One who feels disposed so to do, regards himself as occupying a higher position than other men, and privileged to deal thus with his fellows. He considers himself as able to look up to God, and bless him; and down to men and curse them. It is a presumptuous and high-handed disposition wholly displeasing to God. James’ word, katarometha, from kataraomai, is derived from katara, a curse. This word, etymologically, is made up of the preposition kata, down, and ara, a prayer. It is therefore, an address to God in the form of a prayer that he will bring evil upon men. The noun ara was originally used by the Greeks to designate the goddess of destruction. A curse is, therefore, a petition to God to destroy men made in his own image! Such is sinful and wrong. We must distinguish between such maledictions uttered by men against other men, and the legitimate curses often mentioned in Scripture. God cursed the serpent which tempted Eve and which became the instrument of sin and death in the human family. (Gen 3:14.) He also pronounced a curse upon Cain, who slew his brother Abel. (Gen 4:11.) God promised Abraham that he would curse those who cursed him. (Gen 15:1-6.) These divine curses were not simply and solely imprecations. nor the utterance of evil desires, they carried their effects with them, and were accompanied by the sufferings which they foretold. There are also numerous instances of curses delivered against individuals and nations by the servants of God. (Gen 9:25; Gen 49:7; Deu 27:15; Jos 6:26.) These curses did not develop from feelings of passion, revenge, and malice; they were prophecies of impending doom upon people who were highly disobedient to God. The law of Moses positively forbade all unjustified cursing; and one who cursed his father or mother committed a capital crime. (Exo 21:17.)

who are made after the likeness of God:—The antecedent of “who,” is the word men, whom some were disposed to curse with a tongue at other times used to bless God. These men thus cursed are made after God’s likeness, a fact which points up the grave crime of speaking against them. The phrase is the translation of tous kath’ homoiosin Theou gegonotas, the perfect tense-gegonotas, from ginomai -denoting that man was made in, and continues to be in the likeness of God. This image is not physical but moral and spiritual; and, though marred greatly in the fall, is still apparent in man, and is that which elevates him above the animal creation. (2Co 3:18.) There is in men, even the worst of them, traces of their divine origin, and this fact must ever be kept in mind in our dealings one with another. Inasmuch as man is in the likeness of God (Gen 1:27), and since God desires the salvation of all men (1Ti 2:4), it is the responsibility of every child of God to establish and maintain a relationship toward others that will enable him to influence them for good.

The image of God in man has long been a fruitful field of controversy, and study, and many questions remain unanswered, due to the fact that the Scriptures have little to say thereon. It is idle to speculate as to the manner, extent and present character of it. Man is said to have been made in the image of, and after the likeness of God (Gen 1:26; Gen 5:1), and it has been a favorite exercise of theologians to search out what they regard as distinctions between these two terms. It is by no means certain that there is any essential difference between likeness and image in the passage cited above; and it may well be that the twofold expression is used merely to give emphasis to the idea of godlikeness set forth in these passages. Those who wish to pursue the matter to the extent possible from the sparcity of scripture thereon will consider Gen 9:6; Psalms 8; J arnes 3 : 9; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10; 1Pe 1:15-16; 2Pe 1:4. The fact of such likeness is clearly taught, and many considerations are based upon it. The sacredness of human life issues from this fact (Gen 9:6), and as the avenging hand is not to be raised against our fellow human beings for this reason, so the slanderous tongue is also to be restrained from inflicting injury. Paul informs us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23), a passage which appears to suggest that the image of man, though yet discernible, is not as glorious as it was before the fall. References to the “new man” (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10); “partakers of the divine nature,” (2Pe 1:4), and similar affirmations, definitely indicate that man has lost much of what he once had in this respect, but which may be regained in Christ.

10 out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing.—The absurdity of such a situation is glaring, and is alluded to by statement and by illustration again and again in this section. It is sinful for many reasons: (1) The mouth was created for holy purposes and not for base and sinful ones: (2) it is highly inconsistent for the mouth to utter praise to God, and then to curse men made in God’s likeness; (3) it is contrary to nature (emphasized in verse 11), for the mouth to give utterance to sentiments so contradictory. Though the siniulness of such a practice is apparent to every thoughtful person, the evil alluded to is well nigh universal and the warnings of the sacred writer are by no means superfluous. If those most prominent among the early disciples often erred in this respect, and were rebuked for such, we would do well to give the most serious attention to these matters that we may avoid them in our own lives. Peter, for example, assured the Lord that “If all men shall be offended (margin, caused to stumble), in thee, I will never be offended” (caused to stumble). (Mat 26:33.) Yet, just a few short hours later, this same apostle “denied with an oath” that he was acquainted with Jesus, and reenforced his denials with curses. (Mat 26:69-75.) John, often called the “apostle of love,” was so incensed on one occasion he asked the Lord to call down fire out of heaven upon a Samaritan village which he fancied had shown disrespect to them, yet could later write, “He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love.” ( 1Jn 4:8.) If the best of men were guilty of occasional lapses in this respect, we must ever be on our guard that we do not sin even more grievously.

My brethren, these things ought not so to be—A conclusion drawn from the preceding premises. The verb indicates the coming into a situation, rather than the situation itself, thus signifying, “These things ought not to begin to be.” The word rendered “ought,” means that aside from the consideration of right and wrong (with which the writer had already fully dealt), it is contrary to the fitness of things for us to bless God and to curse men from the same mouth. It is not even in harmony with good sense! The word translated “ought,” is from a root from which another Greek word, chresis, meaning use, comes. Thus implied is the uselessness of such actions, aside from their sinfulness. Why pronounce evil maledictions upon another? They do not harm him ; God is not influenced against another thereby; and, it is idle to engage in that which is both senseless and without profit. When, to this is added the fact that the action reverts upon the head of the one doing the cursing, and places him under the condemnation of God, it is seen to be both senseless and sinful.

11 Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?—The illustration of the fountain to which James alludes here, would be especially familiar and impressive to his readers. In a land where rainfall is sparse, where wells are few and costly, and where the people are poor, multitudes of them depended on springs flowing out of the earth for their water supply. Access to an abundant supply of good water was one of the greatest blessings to people thus situated. “The fountain,” (he pege) is, literally, the spring, a source of water springing forth from the ground. The verb (bruei), is a present active indicative, meaning to bubble up and to gush forth. “The same opening,” (opes) a word indicating a break or fissure in the earth, is translated cave in Heb 11:38. “Sweet,” (glukus), is from the same root as our word glucose, and “bitter” is from pikron, the root of which means to cut or prick, indicating the effect of the thing so designated on the tongue and tastebuds. The question is rhetorical, and in a construction where a negative answer is expected. “No; a fountain does not send forth from the same opening water that is both sweet and bitter !”

Many springs in Palestine are brackish and bitter ; and often water there and elsewhere over the earth is of such character that it is not fit for human consumption. The Israelites were not unacquainted with the bitter waters of Marah (Exo 15:23) ; travelers in the Holy Land have discovered that most of the springs on the eastern side of Judah and Benjamin are hardly fit for use; and water tasting of sulphur or salt is commonly found there. Some springs are good; others, bad; but it is not characteristic of the same spring to supply both good water and bad.

A spring known to supply good water may be depended on to continue to do so. One would be most surprised after drinking deeply of the waters of a cold, refreshing mountain spring, to discover that, on a second imbibing, they had turned brackish and bitter. Nature is consistent in its bestowal of blessings. God does not mock us by making good water turn into bad, while we drink.

12 can a fig tree, my brethren, yield olives, or-a vine figs?—This, too, is in a construction where a negative answer is expected. “A fig tree cannot yield olives, nor a vine figs, my brethren, can it?” It is quite likely that James, if he looked out of his window when he penned these words, could see fig trees, olive trees and vines from where he sat, since all of these are most common in Palestine. The yard of practically every house in Palestine had a vine and fig tree, and vines of various kinds grew on the hills round about. (2Ki 18:31.) There is an unchanging law of nature that like produces like; and to this law the sacred writers often alluded. Jesus taught this same lesson, in principle, when he said, “Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by its fruit. Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth good things; and the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.” (Mat 12:33-35.) In the Sermon on the Mount he said, “By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit ; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Mat 7:16-18.)

It is contrary to nature for a fig tree to produce olives or a vine figs. If to this the objection is raised that by grafting a tree may be made to produce a variety of fruit differing from the parent root, it should be noted that James’ illustration deals with the nature of things. A tree which, when planted, is a fig, will not later produce olives, nor will a vine yield figs. Figs and olives are desirable, but each must be produced from its own kind. There is a fixed and invariable Jaw of nature in this respect, but for which one could never sow with any certainty that the kind of harvest desired would be produced. Therefore, the practice of the tongue in giving utterance to sentiments wholly opposite, as blessing and cursing, is contrary to all nature, a violation of the will of him who created it and when allowed to operate unrestrained, will eventually result in the destruction of him who is thus guilty. Such a person demonstrates that he is out of harmony with the law of God in nature and revelation.

neither can salt water yield sweet.—A spring, whose water is salty, does not yield sweet water, good for human consumption. If this statement appears to be in conflict with earlier affirmations of James that “blessing” and “cursing” proceed from the same mouth, it is important to note that the “blessing” which issues from such a source is itself corrupted by the cursing which also issues, and thus loses its character of true blessing. The lesson is that a thing must produce according to its own nature; and, if blessings and curses appear to come from the same mouth, there is something seriously wrong. Either the blessing or the cursing must be defective; it cannot, in the nature of the case, be the cursing; therefore, it is the blessing. Prayer and praise, from the same heart, indicate that the one thus engaging is hypocritical; blessing and cursing from the same mouth reveal that the blessing is corrupted. As a fountain which yields salt water does not give forth fresh water, so a mouth which curses cannot properly bless. Though both may be attempted, it is the cursing which reveals the true character of the heart.

It is, therefore, vitally important that the tongue be restrained, and this lesson James repeatedly teaches in his Epistle. Reasons assigned are, (1) the tongue is a little member, though capable of exercising the most far-reaching effects; (2) it is the most difficult member of the body to restrain and control; (3) it is impossible to tame it so that it may be left unguarded; (4) it is “a world of iniquity,” because of its potentiality for evil; (5) unrestrained, it will defile the whole body, “set on fire the wheel of nature,” and itself be “set on fire by hell.” Jesus said, “And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” (Mat 12:36-37.) “A soft answer turneth away wrath; but a grievous word stirreth up anger. The tongue of the wise uttereth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out folly.” (Pro 15:1-2.)

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Therewith: Psa 16:9, Psa 30:12, Psa 35:28, Psa 51:14, Psa 57:8, Psa 62:4, Psa 71:24, Psa 108:1, Act 2:26

bless: 1Ch 29:10, 1Ch 29:20, Psa 34:1, Psa 63:4, Psa 145:1, Psa 145:21, Isa 29:13, Eph 1:3, 1Pe 1:3

therewith curse: Jdg 9:27, 2Sa 16:5, 2Sa 19:21, Psa 10:7, Psa 59:12, Psa 109:17, Psa 109:18, Ecc 7:22, Mat 5:44, Mat 26:74, Rom 3:14

made: Gen 1:26, Gen 1:27, Gen 5:1, Gen 9:6, 1Co 11:7

Reciprocal: Num 23:13 – and curse me Job 31:30 – mouth Eph 2:18 – the Col 1:12 – the Father 1Jo 2:1 – Father

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jas 3:9. The main point in this and the next verse is to show the inconsistency in the uncontrolled tongue. Man is made after the similitude of God, therefore He should be regarded with respect. Yet the evil tongue will bless one and curse the other.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Jas 3:9. Therewith: literally, in it, acting in the sphere of the tongue; hence, instrumentally, by it.

bless we God, even the Father. The best manuscripts read, bless we the Lord and Father, an unusual combination; both terms apply to God the Father. To praise God is the proper use of the tongue.

and therewith, by it, curse we menthe improper and opposite use of the tongue.

which are made after the similitude, or likeness, of God. Man was originally created after the Divine image (Gen 1:26); and this image, although marred and obscured, is not, as some rashly affirm, obliterated by sin. Thus murder was declared to be punishable by death, because man was made in the image of God (Gen 9:6). Man in his understanding and affections, and especially in his conscience, still bears the traces of the moral image of his Creator; indeed, it is by reason of this resemblance that we can attain to a knowledge of the perfections of God, and are rendered capable of religion. And this Divine image obscured by sin is restored by Christ (Col 3:10). This Divine similitude, then, we ought to respect both in ourselves and in others. He who curses man curses the image of God, and consequently God Himself in His image. It is evident that the reference is not to the original condition of man prior to the fall, but to his present state; for thus only can there be any force in the apostles remark.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, 1. Our apostle informs us what is the proper use of the tongue: namely, to bless and praise God; speech being the most excellent faculty, is to be consecrated to divine uses: it is both a good man’s work and his recreation to bless and praise God.

Observe, 2. The sinful use which some men put the tongue unto, and that is, to curse with it, to curse men that have the natural image of God upon them, yea, holy and good men, that have the divine image of God instamped upon them; this is the abuse of some men’s tongues, their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.

Observe, 3. The same tongue cannot, should not bless God and curse men; to pray and brawl with the same tongue, is shameful hypocrisy; to go from worshipping to railing and reviling, to speak to the God of heaven with a tongue set on fire of hell, is a monstrous impiety.

Observe, 4. How the apostle discovers the mighty absurdity of blessing and cursing with one and the same tongue, and of putting the best member to the worst use; the good aggravates the evil, and the evil disparageth, yea, disproveth the good; to suppose that the same tongue should acceptably bless God, and at the same time sinfully curse men, is as irrational and absurd as to imagine that the same fountain should send forth salt water and fresh, sweet water and bitter; and, as if a fig tree should bring forth olives, or a vine bear figs: our apostle argues and reasons from what is impossible in nature, to what is absurd in manners; contrary effects from the same cause is against the order of nature; in like manner grace is uniform, and always acts like itself; to bless and curse, to pray and revile, is wholly inconsistent with grace: nature abhors contradictions, and so does the grace of God: though a Christian has a double principle in him, the flesh and the spirit, yet he has not a double heart; his spirit is single and sincere in what he does, in all he does both for God and man.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Jas 3:9-10. Therewith bless we God That is, therewith mankind bless God; for the apostle, as appears from the next clause, did not speak of himself particularly, or of his fellow-apostles, or even of true private Christians, who certainly do not curse men. Perhaps in this last clause he glanced at the unconverted Jews, who often cursed the Christians bitterly in their synagogues. Made after the similitude of God Which we have indeed now lost, but yet there remains from thence an indelible nobleness, which we ought to reverence, both in ourselves and others. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing And the same tongue is often the instrument of expressing both; and too frequently, says Doddridge, when the act of devotion is over, the act of slander, or outrage and insult, commences. My brethren, these things ought not so to be At least among those who profess Christianity; it is a shame that any such thing should be found in human nature; and it is a still greater shame that any thing of the kind should be practised by any that profess to be the disciples of Him who was manifested to destroy the works of the devil.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

James gives us a look into the foolishness of man in how they use their tongue. I am sure most of you have seen this sort of inconsistency in other believers. Some might even admit to it in themselves 🙂

There is indication of the trinity in this passage. It states we bless God, “even the Father” which could be translated also the Father. We bless Christ or the Spirit, and “even” (or also) The Father.

Have you ever noticed that when people swear they usually defame Christ, but seldom do they defame the Father? I don’t know that I have ever heard anyone use the Spirit in swearing. Wander why they seem to have this division of acceptability. Possibly, they relate to Christ in His humanity and He is readily available to their thoughts and tongue.

We bless God yet curse men that are made in the image of God. One of the grand applications to the teaching of our being created in His image is that when we curse men, we are actually near to cursing God for we are quite similar in our created state.

We ought never to curse men, for they are created in His image. Not to speak of the fact that some men are God’s children as well.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

3:9 {6} Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the {7} similitude of God.

(6) Among other faults of the tongue, the apostle chiefly reproves slandering and speaking evil of our neighbours, even in those especially who otherwise will seem godly and religious.

(7) He denies by two reasons, that God can be praised by the man who uses cursed speaking, or slandering: first because man is the image of God and whoever does not reverence him, does not honour God.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

5. The inconsistency of the tongue 3:9-12

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

We honor God with our words, but then we turn right around and dishonor other people with what we say. This is inconsistent because man is the image of God (Gen 1:27).

"To bless God is the sublimest function of the human tongue; thrice daily the devout Jew recited ’the Eighteen Benedictions,’ with their ending ’Blessed art Thou, O God.’" [Note: Adamson, p. 146.]

"It was the pious practice among the Jews, both in speaking and in writing, to add ’Blessed [be] He’ after each utterance of the name of God. No doubt, the readers of this epistle still continued this practice whenever God was mentioned." [Note: Hiebert, James, p. 201. Cf. Mark 14:61.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 15

THE MORAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE RECKLESS TALKER.

Jam 3:9-12

IN these concluding sentences of the paragraph respecting sins of the tongue St. James does two things-he shows the moral chaos to which the Christian who fails to control his tongue is reduced, and he thereby shows such a man how vain it is for him to hope that the worship which he offers to Almighty God can be pure and acceptable. He has made himself the channel of hellish influences. He cannot at pleasure make himself the channel of heavenly influences, or become the offerer of holy sacrifices. The fires of Pentecost will not rest where the fires of Gehenna are working, nor can one who has become the minister of Satan at the same time be a minister to offer praise to God.

When those who would have excused themselves for their lack of good works pleaded the correctness of their faith, St. James told them that such faith was barren and dead, and incapable of saving them from condemnation. Similarly, the man who thinks himself to be religious, and does not bridle his tongue, was told that his religion is vain. {Jam 1:26} And in the passage before us St. James explains how that is. His religion or religious worship () is a mockery and a contradiction. The offering is tainted; it comes from a polluted altar and a polluted priest. A man who curses his fellow-men and then blesses God, is like one who professes the profoundest respect for his sovereign, while he insults the royal family, throws mud at the royal portraits, and ostentatiously disregards the royal wishes. It is further proof of the evil character of the tongue that it is capable of lending itself to such chaotic activity. “Therewith bless we the Lord and Father,” i.e., God in His might and in His love”; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the likeness of God.” The heathen fable tells us the apparent contradiction of being able to blow both hot and cold with the same breath; and the son of Sirach points out that “if thou blow the spark, it shall burn; if thou spit upon it, it shall be quenched; and both these come out of thy mouth” (Sir 28:12). St. James, who may have had this passage in his mind, shows us that there is a real and a moral contradiction which goes far beyond either of these: “Out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing.” Well may he add, with affectionate earnestness, “My brethren, these things ought not so be.”

Assuredly they ought not; and yet how common the contradiction has been, and still is, among those who seem to be, and who think themselves to be, religious people! There is perhaps no particular in which persons professing to have a desire to serve God are more ready to invade His prerogatives than in venturing to denounce those who differ from themselves, and are supposed to be, therefore, under the ban of Heaven. “They have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they do not subject themselves to the righteousness of God”. {Rom 10:2-3} Hence they rashly and intemperately “curse whom the Lord hath not cursed, and defy whom the Lord hath not defied”. {Num 23:8} There are still many who believe that not only in the psalms and hymns in which they bless the Lord, but also in the sermons and pamphlets in which they fulminate against their fellow-Christians, they are offering service to. {Joh 16:2} There are many questions which have to be carefully considered and answered before a Christian mouth, which has been consecrated to the praise of our Lord and Father, ought to venture to utter denunciations against others who worship the same God and are also His offspring and His image. Is it quite certain that the supposed evil is something which God abhors; that those whom we would denounce are responsible for it; that denunciation of them will do any good; that this is the proper time for such denunciation; that we are the proper persons to utter it? About every one of these questions the most fatal mistakes are constantly being made. The singing of Te Deums after massacres and dragonnades is perhaps no longer possible; but alternations between religious services and religious prosecutions, between writing pious books and publishing exasperating articles, are by no means extinct. For one case in which harm has been done because no one has come forward to denounce a wrongdoer, there are ten cases in which harm has been done because someone has been indiscreetly, or inopportunely, or uncharitably, or unjustly denounced. “Praise is not seasonable () in the mouth of a sinner” (Sir 15:9); and whatever may have been the writers meaning in the difficult passage in which it occurs, we may give it a meaning that will bring it into harmony with what St. James says here. The praise of God is not seasonable in the mouth of one who is ever sinning in reviling Gods children.

The illustrations of the fountain and the fig-tree are among the touches which, if they do not indicate one who is familiar with Palestine, at any rate agree well with the fact that the writer of this Epistle was such. Springs tainted with salt or with sulphur are not rare, and it is stated that most of those on the eastern slope of the hill-country of Judea are brackish. The fig-tree, the vine, and the olive were abundant throughout the whole country; and St. James, if he looked out of the window as he was writing, would be likely enough to see all three. It is not improbable that in one or more of the illustrations he is following some ancient saying or proverb. Thus, Arrian, the pupil of Epictetus, writing less than a century later, asks, “How can a vine grow, not vinewise, but olivewise, or an olive, on the other hand, not olivewise, but vinewise? It is impossible, inconceivable.” It is possible that our Lord Himself, when He used a similar illustration in connection with the worst of all sins of the tongue, was adapting a proverb already in use. In speaking of “the blasphemy against the Spirit,” He says, “Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its fruit. Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth good things; and the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. And I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment”. {Mat 12:33-36} And previously, in the Sermon on the Mount, where He was speaking of deeds rather than of words, “By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit”. {Mat 7:16-18}

Can it be the case that while physical contradictions are not permitted in the lower classes of unconscious objects, moral contradictions of a very monstrous kind are allowed in the highest of all earthly creatures? The “double-minded man,” who prays and doubts, receives nothing from the Lord, because his petition is only in form a prayer; it lacks the essential characteristic of prayer, which is faith. But the double-tongued man, who blesses God and curses men, what does he receive? Just as the double-minded man is judged by his doubts, and not by his forms of prayer, so the double-tongued man is judged by his curses, and not by his forms of praise. In each case one or the other of the two contradictories is not real. If there is prayer, there are no doubts; and if there are doubts, there is no prayer-no prayer that will avail with God. So also in the other case: if God is sincerely and heartily blessed, there will be no cursing of His children; and if there is such cursing, God cannot acceptably be blessed; the very words of praise, coming from such lips, will be an offense to Him.

But it may be urged, our Lord Himself has set us an example of strong denunciation in the woes which He pronounced upon the scribes and Pharisees; and again, St. Paul cursed Hymenaeus and Alexander, {1Ti 1:20} the incestuous person at Corinth, {1Co 5:5} and Elymas the sorcerer. {Act 13:10} Most true. But firstly, these curses were uttered by those who could not err in such things. Christ “knew what was in man,” and could read the hearts of all; and the fact that St. Pauls curses were supernaturally fulfilled proves that he was acting under Divine guidance in what he said. And secondly, these stern utterances had their source in love; not, as human curses commonly have, in hate. It was in order that those on whom they were pronounced might be warned, and schooled to better things, that they were uttered; and we know that in the case of the sinner at Corinth the severe remedy had this effect; the curse was really a blessing. When we have infallible guidance, and when we are able by supernatural results to prove that we possess it, it will be time enough to begin to deal in curses. And let us remember the proportion which such things bear to the rest of Christs words and of St. Pauls words, so far as they have been preserved for us. Christ wrought numberless miracles of mercy: besides those which are recorded in detail, we are frequently told that “He healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many devils”; {Mar 1:34} that “He had healed”; {Mar 3:10} that “wheresoever He entered, into villages or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in the market-places, and besought Him that they might touch if it were but the border of His garment; and as many as touched Him were made whole”; {Mar 6:56} and so forth. {Joh 21:25} But he wrought only one miracle of judgment, and that was upon a tree, which could teach the necessary lesson without feeling the punishment. {Mar 11:12-23} All this applies with much force to those who believe themselves to be called upon to denounce and curse all such as seem to them to be enemies of God and His truth: but with how much more force to those who in moments of anger and irritation deal in execrations on their own account, and curse a fellow-Christian, not because he seems to them to have offended God, but because he has offended themselves! That such persons should suppose that their polluted mouths can offer acceptable praises to the Lord and Father, is indeed a moral contradiction of the most startling kind. And are such cases rare? Is it so uncommon a thing for a man to attend Church regularly, and join with apparent devotion in the services, and yet think little of the grievous words which he allows himself to utter when his temper is severely tried? How amazed and offended he would be if he were invited to eat at a table which had been used for some disgusting purpose, and had never since been cleansed! And yet he does not hesitate to “defile his whole body” with his unbridled tongue, and then offer praise to God from this polluted source!

Nor is this the only contradiction in which such a one is involved. How strange that the being who is lord and master of all the animal creation should be unable to govern himself! How strange that mans chief mark of superiority over the brutes should be the power of speech, and that he should use this power in such a way as to make it the instrument of his own degradation, until he becomes lower than the brutes! They, whether tamed or untamed, unconsciously declare the glory of God; while he with his noble powers of consciously and loyally praising Him, by his untamed tongue reviles those who are made after the image of God, and thus turns his own praises into blasphemies. Thus does mans rebellion reverse the order of nature and frustrate the will of God.

The writer of this Epistle has been accused of exaggeration. It has been urged that in this strongly worded paragraph he himself is guilty of that unchastened language which he is so eager to condemn; that the case is overstated, and that the highly-colored picture is a caricature. Is there any thoughtful person of large experience that can honestly assent to this verdict? Who has not seen what mischief may be done by a single utterance of mockery, or enmity, or bravado; what confusion is wrought by exaggeration, innuendo, and falsehood; what suffering is inflicted by slanderous suggestions and statements; what careers of sin have been begun by impure stories and filthy jests? All these effects may follow, be it remembered, from a single utterance in this case, may spread to multitudes, may last for years. One reckless word may blight a whole life. “Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not so many as have fallen by the tongue” (Sir 28:18). And there are persons who habitually pour forth such things, who never pass a day without uttering what is unkind, or false, or impure. When we look around us and see the moral ruin which in every class of society can be traced to reckless language-lives embittered, and blighted, and brutalized by words spoken and heard-can we wonder at the severe words of St. James, whose experience was not very different from our own? Violent and uncharitable language had become one of the besetting sins of the Jews, and no doubt Jewish Christians were by no means free from it. “Curse the whisperer and the double-tongued,” says the son of Sirach, “for such have destroyed many that were at peace” (Sir 28:13). To which the Syriac Version adds a clause not given in the Greek, nor in our Bibles: “Also the third tongue, let it be cursed; for it has laid low many corpses.” This expression, “third tongue,” seems to have come into use among the Jews in the period between the Old and New Testament. It means a slanderous tongue, and it is called “third” because it is fatal to three sets of people-to the person who utters the slander, to those who listen to it, and to those about whom it is uttered. “A third tongue hath tossed many to and fro, and driven them from nation to nation; and strong cities hath it pulled down, and houses of great men hath it overthrown” (Sir 28:14); where not only the Syriac, but the Greek, has the interesting expression “third tongue,” a fact obscured in our version.

The “third tongue” is as common and as destructive now as when the son of Sirach denounced it, or St. James wrote against it with still greater authority; and we all of us can do a great deal to check the mischief, not merely by taking care that we keep our own tongues from originating evil, but by refusing to repeat, or if possible even to listen to, what the third tongue says. Our unwillingness to hear may be a discouragement to the speaker, and our refusal to repeat will at least lessen the evil of his tale. We shall have saved ourselves from becoming links in the chain of destruction.

There is one kind of sinful language to which the severe sayings of St. James specially apply, although the context seems to show that it was not specially in his mind-impure language. The foul tongue is indeed a “world of iniquity, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell.” In no other case is the self-pollution of the speaker so manifest, or the injury to the listener so probable, so all but inevitable. Foul stories and impure jests and innuendoes, even more clearly than oaths and curses, befoul the souls of those who utter them, while they lead the hearers into sin. Such things rob all who are concerned in them, either as speakers or listeners, of two things which are the chief safeguards of virtue-the fear of God, and the fear of sin. They create an atmosphere in which men sin with a light heart, because the grossest sins are made to look not only attractive and easy, but amusing. What can be made to seem laughable is supposed to be not very serious. There is no more devilish act that a human being can perform than that of inducing others to believe that what is morally hideous and deadly is “pleasant to the eye and good for food.” And this devils work is sometimes done merely to raise a laugh, merely for something to say. Does any one seriously maintain that the language of St. James is at all too strong for such these things as these? We hardly need his authority for the belief that a filthy tongue pollutes a mans whole being, and owes its inspiration to the Evil One.

It is of angry, ill-tempered, unkind words that we do not believe this so readily. Words that are not false or calumnious, not running out into blasphemies and curses, and certainly not tainted with anything like impurity, do not always strike us as being as harmful as they really are, not only to others, whom they irritate or sadden, but to ourselves, who allow our characters to be darkened by them. The captious word, that makes everything a subject for blame; the discontented word, that would show that the speaker is always being ill-treated; the biting word, that is meant to inflict pain; the sullen word, that throws a gloom over all who hear it; the provoking word, that seeks to stir up strife-of all these we are most of us apt to think too lightly, and need the stern warnings of St. James to remind us of their true nature and of their certain consequences. As regards others, such things wound tender hearts, add needlessly and enormously to the unhappiness of mankind, turn sweet affections sour, stifle good impulses, create and foster bad feelings, embitter in its smallest details the whole round of daily life. As regards ourselves, indulgence in such language weakens and warps our characters, blunts our sympathies, deadens our love for man, and therefore our love for God. “In particular it makes prayer either impossible or half useless. Whether we know it or not, the prayer that comes from a heart indulging in evil temper is hardly a prayer at all. We cannot really be face to face with God; we cannot really approach God as a Father; we cannot really feel like children kneeling at His feet; we cannot really be simply affectionate and truthful in what we say to Him, if irritation, discontent, or gloom, or anger, is busy at our breasts. An undisciplined temper shuts out the face of God from us. We may see His holy Law, but we cannot see Himself. We may think of Him as our Creator, our Judge, our Ruler, but we cannot think of Him as our Father, nor approach Him with love.” “Salt water cannot yield sweet.”

It was once pleaded on behalf of a man who had been criticized and condemned as unsatisfactory, that he was “a good man, all but his temper.” “All but his temper!” was the not unreasonable reply”; as if temper were not nine-tenths of religion.” “If any man stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles